democratic members

The “mommy! mommy! He did it too” defense of the Republican Party is in full swing. They are deploying it every chance they get when it comes to the recent rise of threats of violence against Democratic lawmakers.

Think Progress caught up Texas Republican, Rep. Pete Olson and asked him about what’s going on. When it comes to Sarah Palin’s website and the “targeting” of Democrats, Olson did the right thing:

TP: Speaking of gun shots, would you consider Palin telling her supporters they need to “reload,” and posting a picture of crosshairs on Democratic members — is that inappropriate?

OLSON: There’s things, both parties are inappropriate.

TP: Is that inappropriate, yes or no?

OLSON: No I’m not going to answer the question.

TP: So it is appropriate.

OLSON: It is inappropriate.

But Olson couldn’t leave well enough alone. If he would have stopped right there, then he would have come out looking like a real leader in our nation. Instead he had to fall back to his GOP instincts and employ the mommy defense:

While Olson continually claimed that both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have incited violence, he could not point to a single example of Democrats doing so.

Good for Think Progress for asking him to give examples. This is something most in the media refuse to do. As matter of fact, the only one I have seen do it so far is David Shuster, and when that happened the person he was interviewing went further into loony land.

Right along party lines as expected, with Jim Bunning not voting. What’s interesting is that since the GOP started praying for Democratic members of the Senate to not show up, a Republican has missed every vote. Irony or sweet revenge?

This ends the 2009 legislative year and now we are on to reconciliation to fix the health care bill. I actually have a little bit of hope of some good coming out of there, given statements some House members are starting to make. This bill is far from perfect, but we now have a real chance to make it better. It’s a much more real chance than the “fix it later” mentality. We won’t get things like a public option out of conference, but if a few things could happen like dropping/greatly reducing the mandate for lower income people, then it’s a bill I could stomach. I’ve said all along that the mandates was the deal breaker for me because of the adverse affect they actually will have on lower income people, namely those who make just enough to not get Medicaid.

I will admit that the bill does a lot to reduce costs for families, but most are focusing on the more median income families. In our uncertain economic times with a very weak job market, forcing people below 175% of the federal poverty level to buy insurance is adding to an already disastrous situation. It also shows the disconnect between Washington and the lower income people. They don’t know what it’s like to live paycheck to paycheck. They are operating on the assumption that people in this situation don’t get insurance out of greed. For most it is out of a very, very tough decision on what expenses can be cut in order to survive. Health insurance means nothing if you are homeless or can’t afford to eat, and the extra $1,100-$5,000 a year these people will now be forced to pay is going to be felt hard.

To keep it in context, here is the chart from the CBO that many have been using to calculate health care costs under the new legislation:

The hero. The idol. The man they set up on a pedestal for the entire conservative movement is now implicated in the Jack Abramoff scandal:

Five conservative nonprofit organizations, including one run by prominent Republican Grover Norquist, "perpetrated a fraud" on taxpayers by selling their clout to lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Senate investigators said in a report issued today.

The report includes previously unreleased e-mails between the now-disgraced lobbyist and officers of the nonprofit groups, showing that Abramoff routed money from his clients to the groups. In exchange the groups, among other things, produced ostensibly independent newspaper op-ed columns or press releases that favored the clients' positions.

Officers of the groups "were generally available to carry out Mr. Abramoff's requests for help with his clients in exchange for cash payments," said the report, issued by the Democratic members of the Senate Finance Committee after a one-year investigation.

So if you don't like taxes then that means you should be able to take them from people? If that is the new way of thinking in our country then I hate marijuana and will now take it from people (for proper disposal of course ;) )